Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
uh, no kiddingand how much more would it cost you to put on your show had the theater not got government money?
That would depend on how often they rent out the theatre space.
thats why i asked "how much more it would cost to put on your show" (note singular)
you can not make the claim to not have bennefited because it would more than likely cost you more to put on your show because the theater would need to actually EARN that money rather than get it from the government
its not the show that is the problem, its the government money
uh, no kiddingThat would depend on how often they rent out the theatre space.
thats why i asked "how much more it would cost to put on your show" (note singular)
you can not make the claim to not have bennefited because it would more than likely cost you more to put on your show because the theater would need to actually EARN that money rather than get it from the government
its not the show that is the problem, its the government money
They are supported by contributions otherwise. But let's assume they rent out their stage 3 times a week.
Three times a week = $166.
I want my $0.00000166 back, dammit
uh, no kidding
thats why i asked "how much more it would cost to put on your show" (note singular)
you can not make the claim to not have bennefited because it would more than likely cost you more to put on your show because the theater would need to actually EARN that money rather than get it from the government
its not the show that is the problem, its the government money
They are supported by contributions otherwise. But let's assume they rent out their stage 3 times a week.
Three times a week = $166.
I want my $0.00000166 back, dammit
if it was so small, and they could had made it up in "contributions" then they DIDNT NEED ITThey are supported by contributions otherwise. But let's assume they rent out their stage 3 times a week.
Three times a week = $166.
I want my $0.00000166 back, dammit
Well, you asked. They received $25K. Divided by that many performances would equal approximately $166 more needed to make up the difference. Roughly 100 million taxpayers chipping in, so that comes to $0.00000166 from each of us (per performance, of course).
Where's my check
if it was so small, and they could had made it up in "contributions" then they DIDNT NEED IT
Well, you asked. They received $25K. Divided by that many performances would equal approximately $166 more needed to make up the difference. Roughly 100 million taxpayers chipping in, so that comes to $0.00000166 from each of us (per performance, of course).
Where's my check
and the government shouldnt have been giving it
sheeeesh
and its not the ammount, its the principle of the matter
it was NOT needed in the "stimulus"
its the principle of the matter
oh just get over itif it was so small, and they could had made it up in "contributions" then they DIDNT NEED ITWell, you asked. They received $25K. Divided by that many performances would equal approximately $166 more needed to make up the difference. Roughly 100 million taxpayers chipping in, so that comes to $0.00000166 from each of us (per performance, of course).
Where's my check
and the government shouldnt have been giving it
sheeeesh
and its not the ammount, its the principle of the matter
it was NOT needed in the "stimulus"
If it isn't the amount, then why bother to ask him how much more it would cost him had they not received the money?
And how do you know where CounterPulse applied the money? Perhaps it went to art instruction and appreciation for inner city kids.
stop telling liesits the principle of the matter
What is the principle? FNC's claim that the stimulus went to subsidize "porn" has been clearly refuted on all counts now that Mr. Sheppard has so kindly weighed in. The only obscenity I see is in FNC's unrelenting attack on reality.
Actually, that appears to be what you're doingoh just get over itif it was so small, and they could had made it up in "contributions" then they DIDNT NEED IT
and the government shouldnt have been giving it
sheeeesh
and its not the ammount, its the principle of the matter
it was NOT needed in the "stimulus"
If it isn't the amount, then why bother to ask him how much more it would cost him had they not received the money?
And how do you know where CounterPulse applied the money? Perhaps it went to art instruction and appreciation for inner city kids.
sheeesh
they got money they shouldhnt have got
you also made the claim he didnt benefit from it when they would have had to charge more if they didnt get it
so he DID benefit even if it was a small amount
you are just arguing just to argue at this point
they should do away with the NEAActually, that appears to be what you're doingoh just get over itIf it isn't the amount, then why bother to ask him how much more it would cost him had they not received the money?
And how do you know where CounterPulse applied the money? Perhaps it went to art instruction and appreciation for inner city kids.
sheeesh
they got money they shouldhnt have got
you also made the claim he didnt benefit from it when they would have had to charge more if they didnt get it
so he DID benefit even if it was a small amount
you are just arguing just to argue at this point
Why did they not deserve a grant? That's part of what the NEA does, ya know.
they should do away with the NEAActually, that appears to be what you're doingoh just get over it
sheeesh
they got money they shouldhnt have got
you also made the claim he didnt benefit from it when they would have had to charge more if they didnt get it
so he DID benefit even if it was a small amount
you are just arguing just to argue at this point
Why did they not deserve a grant? That's part of what the NEA does, ya know.
no, its not a strawmanthey should do away with the NEAActually, that appears to be what you're doing
Why did they not deserve a grant? That's part of what the NEA does, ya know.
Strawman.
It exists, and in these cases were doing what they are supposed to do.
LOLno, its not a strawmanthey should do away with the NEA
Strawman.
It exists, and in these cases were doing what they are supposed to do.
you said its what the NEA does
i said it should be done away with
ROFLMAOLOLno, its not a strawmanStrawman.
It exists, and in these cases were doing what they are supposed to do.
you said its what the NEA does
i said it should be done away with
It most certainly is... and a deflection besides.
Whether the NEA should exist isn't the topic here.
I didn't. I wasn't arguing whether they should exist.ROFLMAOLOLno, its not a strawman
you said its what the NEA does
i said it should be done away with
It most certainly is... and a deflection besides.
Whether the NEA should exist isn't the topic here.
then why did YOU bring it up?
they should do away with the NEAWhy did they not deserve a grant? That's part of what the NEA does, ya know.
you brought it UPI didn't. I wasn't arguing whether they should exist.ROFLMAOLOL
It most certainly is... and a deflection besides.
Whether the NEA should exist isn't the topic here.
then why did YOU bring it up?
Nice try tho':
they should do away with the NEAWhy did they not deserve a grant? That's part of what the NEA does, ya know.
Strawman
why? it shows that YOU brought the NEA into the discussion and claimed "it's what the NEA does"
You should edit LOL
why? it shows that YOU brought the NEA into the discussion and claimed "it's what the NEA does"
You should edit LOL
thus i said the NEA should be done away with
not a strawman at all
Actually, that appears to be what you're doingoh just get over it
sheeesh
they got money they shouldhnt have got
you also made the claim he didnt benefit from it when they would have had to charge more if they didnt get it
so he DID benefit even if it was a small amount
you are just arguing just to argue at this point
Why did they not deserve a grant? That's part of what the NEA does, ya know.
you brought up the NEA emmawhy? it shows that YOU brought the NEA into the discussion and claimed "it's what the NEA does"
You should edit LOL
thus i said the NEA should be done away with
not a strawman at all
Really? I did? Who do you think gave them the money you refer to here:
Actually, that appears to be what you're doingoh just get over it
sheeesh
they got money they shouldhnt have got
you also made the claim he didnt benefit from it when they would have had to charge more if they didnt get it
so he DID benefit even if it was a small amount
you are just arguing just to argue at this point
Why did they not deserve a grant? That's part of what the NEA does, ya know.
I asked you to clarify why you think they don't deserve the grant, because that is what the NEA does--- provide grants for the arts. Why would this particular organization not be deserving of a grant.
Instead of answering, you deflected with the strawman that the NEA shouldn't exist. Whether they should exist isn't the topic of the thread OR the question I asked you.
Keep trying. I've got all night
